OCR Text |
Show 16 institutions developed to deal with the problems of life in an arid environment The fact that the arid environment forced change in social and legal institutions was by no means unique to Utah, but the particular system that developed in response was especially fitted to Utah conditions and people. In 1850, Congress organized the Territory of Utah. Brigham Young was appointed as governor, and a locally elected bicameral territorial legislature was chosen. This government soon became involved in water issues. Among the enactments of the legislature was the designation of the county courts as the public agency with primary administrative responsibility for water resources. The legislature authorized the county judge and a board of selectmen to distribute rights to water resources and gave them the responsibility of ensuring that water was used for the good of the community. The law read: The County Court has control of all. . . water privileges, or any water course, or creek, to grant mill sites, and exercise such power as in their judgement shall best ... subserve the interest of the settlements in their distribution of water for irrigation or other purposes. 4 With this delegation of authority to the county courts, only general guidelines were supplied by the territorial legislature. The county court was to function as a board of experts in questions of allocation and administration. Court duties, with respect to water resources, were classified under two headings: ( 1) duties directing the use of water toward the public interest, and ( 2) duties related to the settlement of disputes which arose among water users. Irrigation experts and historians have regarded the county court legislation as especially wise because on- site inspection, common sense, and community interest were to be utilized rather than legal precedents. The courts did, of course, honor the legal institution of priority that the arid environment had imposed upon the settlers. 5 Under this arrangement, water filings and applications were judged according to community benefit. Those which did not measure up were rejected or modified according to merit. Those which did meet the local courts standard or idea of community benefit were approved and efforts were made to ensure their success. While it was straightforward in concept and broad in implication, this law was a fortuitous beginning that laid a better groundwork than many realized. The county courts functioned extremely well as water allocators and as water administrators. 6 They also dealt with conflicting claims with dispatch and practical understanding of the issues at hand. When comparing the county court system to later institutions, irrigation historian George Thomas stated that: The method was inexpensive and prompt. Seldom did a case remain six months before it was brought before the court for final settlement. It did not bankrupt farmers 4 Cited in George Thomas, The Development of Institutions Under Irrigation: With Special Reference to Early Utah Conditions ( New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), p 57. Arthur Maass and Raymond L. Anderson, ... and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth, and Justice in Arid Environments ( Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The MIT Press, 1978), p 350. George Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, Chapter V. |